I also vote for the possibility of XTOL sudden death. I loved that developer, but just couldn't keep up with it sometimes.
Frankly, hard to notice, Michael, at least with Rollei RLS and even XTOL. Delta does seems to give better separation and detail even though it can resolve at 65 lp/mm compared to 80 for TMX. Anyway, assuming proper development in a fine grain developer, the limiting factor is always lenses, focus, and motion blur if not using a tripod.
Originally Posted by Michael R 1974
Interesting article by Erwin Puts here..http://www.imx.nl/photo/Film/page123/page123.html
I find it noticeable (depending on enlargement factor of course - enlarging a 6x7cm negative to 16x20" is enough to show the differences). Although as with all variables there is a tradeoff. The smaller, thicker Delta grains (compared to TMAX) mean slightly more prominent grain, but they are slightly easier to print than TMAX when it comes to highlight detail. But in essence I agree with you these differences are small.
Shoot a roll of Delta 100 and a roll of TMX side by side, with the same lighting and subject matter.
Only then can you find out whether that is a difference of the films, or how they were processed.
To me, TMX has always looked 'softer' than almost any other film out there, due to its ultra smooth grain.
"Make good art!"
- Neil Gaiman
"...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera".
- Yousuf Karsh
"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit".
I always said, if I got to shoot TMX, might as well shoot digital. Soft, flat, and boring. The absence of grain doesn't make it any more appealing. Delta 100 is a lot better for my eyes.
Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Wow. I don't even know what to say anymore. I'm outta here.
Last edited by Michael R 1974; 11-11-2011 at 04:54 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Sorry to hear about your problems. Are you sure it's the film+developer combo itself, though?
Ilford Delta 100 in XTOL 1+1 is the only thing I've ever used, and I've never had any problem with it. No sudden death or anything questionable at all.
Basically, I follow a personalized version of Kodak's recommended agitation technique: A) 3 initial inversions, and then I let the tank sit for the remainder of the first 30 seconds B) after the first 30 seconds, 3 more inversions and then C) 3 inversions every 30 seconds thereafter.
In side-by-side comparisons, I find the film+developer combo sharper than my $3,000+ Nikon DSLR system. I've never seen any obvious grain. Plus, I get far better dynamic range -- especially in the highlights. I've even rated it at EI 125 (and sometimes EI 160), developed it for 9 minutes at 68F and I still get more shadow detail than I want.
I wish I could compare it to T-Max and print it really big to do my own comparisons. But, unfortunately, I just don't have the equipment to do so.
He could always do a clip test and find out for sure.
Originally Posted by Jadedoto
I have only experienced 'Sudden Death' once. I had a batch of xtol that was just over a year old. I used a working 1ltr bottle and kept the rest in a tightly sealed 4ltr bottle. When it came time to use the last ltr, I did a strip test and it passed. I then processed a roll and it came out blank. That was about as sudden as you can get.
Originally Posted by Brandon D.
Then I used dilute (1:2) quantities and with drum processing only 150ml per roll (one shot). For the cost, it wasn't worth stretching it out that long and introducing a failure. I now use it replenished, which consumes more total xtol. It does give me the same dev times and I use 5ltr in about 6 months.
Note that the 'Sudden Death' is just that. The grain mentioned in this thread can not happen from this. XTol is kinda digital, good and then not and no in between. I would suspect the freshness of the film / exposure, before anything else.
... or might as well be out there drawing cartoons.
Originally Posted by MaximusM3